[No. 4.]

REPORT of the Committee on Public Lands relative to lands re ceived by the State, etc.

The committee of public lands to whom was referred the "annual report of the commissioner of the state land office," have had the same under consideration, and through their chairman make the following report:

That of the 500,000 acres of land granted by congress to this state for the purposes of internal improvement, we have received from the government but 492,504 41-100 acres; leaving a balance still due the state of 7,495 59-100 acres not yet received.

It also appears that by a "Joint Resolution r lative to the selection of public lands," adopted by the legislature and approved March 7, 1846, the Governor was au horized to cause not less than three nor more than six thousand of the said 7,495 59-100 acres of land to be immediately selected out of the surveyed land of the United States situated in the Upper Peninsula. Your committee are informed that such selections were long since made, but that the general government as yet utterly refuses to confirm said selections, and it is anticipated that much trouble, expense and delay would be the result were the state to insist upon the confirmation of the same. Your committee therefore recommend that said selections made in the Upper Peninsula, as above stated, be withdrawn, and that the Governor be authorized to cause new selections of the 7,495 69-100 acres of land be made in the Lower Peninsula of this state, and have instructed me to introduce the accompanying joint resolution for that purpose.

All of which is respectfully submitted, and your committee ask to be discharged. RIX ROBINSON,

Chairman.

[No. 5.]

COMMUNICATION from the Attorney General in reply to a Resolution of the Senate relative to evidence.

To the Senate:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Lansing, January 25, 1849.

I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Attorney General be requested to inform the Senate whether in his opinion a printed copy of the journal of the Senate, certified by the proper officers, is evidence in a court of law: and whether it is competent for the legislature to make such printed copy evidence as aforesaid."

Under our present laws the certificate of any officer would not give additional legal effect to any copy of the Senate journal. For no officer has any such legal authority: and it seems that there is no place or office where the original journals are required to be deposited and kept by law. If there were, the present provisions of the revised statutes would be probably sufficient for the authentication of copies of such journals for all purposes.-Revised Statutes, chap. 12, sec. 4.-Ibid. chap. 102, sec. 74.

I am also of opinion that it is perfectly competent to make a prin. ted copy of the journals certified by any person or officer duly au thorized by law for that purpose, evidence in any court of this state. We have already on our statute books many instances in which certified copies are put upon the same footing as the originals with respect to admissibility in evi lence in courts of law.

I am of opinion, however, that the journals of the Senate prin ted by the state printer and published by authority of the state, are evidence without any further authentication in all the courts of this state.

The constitution, art. 4, sec. 12, requires each House to keep a journal of its proceedings and to publish the same, except such parts as may require secrecy. The journals are therefore printed by the highest authority of law: and I think there can be no doubt

but that the publication of a public document by such authority is as high an authentication as can be conferred on it.-7 Johnson, R. 38. 5 Term. R. 436. 4 Pick. 398. 16 Pet. 25. 1 Scammon's R. 398. But the same article of the constitution enables the Senate to withhold any portion of its journal which in its judgment may require secrecy. Except for this the journal printed by the state authority would be evidence that there were no other proceedings of the Senate than was therein contained. But this power to suppress parts of the journal would probably be held to qualify its legal effect. It would only be evidence that such proceedings as are there recorded were actually had, but no evidence that other proceedings were not also had.

It is however a more difficult question to say whether such printed journal would be received in the same manner as evidence in the courts of other states.

I am inclined to the opinion that by the principles of the common law they would not be received. The only mode of proving them at common law, as it seems, is by a sworn copy, that is, by a copy proved by a person who swears that he has compared it with the original, taken from the proper place of deposite and custody.-1 Stark Evid. Norris' Peake's Ev. 83 and 84.

In one case, however, in an inferior court at Philadelphia, as early as 1794, it seems to have been held that "the printed journals of Congress were allowed to be read in evidence, without proof of their authenticity."-Norris' Peake's Ev. 84, note.

But this case can hardly be deemed of much authority; at least so far as relates to the journal of a state legislature.

In some cases it has been held that even the laws of a sister state, purporting to be printed by state authority, could not be received without further authentication.-1 Pet. C. C. R. 352. 2 Hawks 441.

The contrary has, however, been held in many other cases.- -3 Pick. 293. 1 Chip. 303. 6 Binney 321. 5 Blackf. 385. 9 Port. 9.

Though it seems to be the modern prevailing doctrine that the printed laws (by authority) of a sister state shall be received without further authentication in evidence, yet, as it is against the usual rules of evidence, I do not think it probable that the doctrine would be extended to embrace printed legislative journals and other public

documents. It would probably be held that to make them admissible in evidence, they must be authenticated according to the rule of evidence which I have stated above.

I have the honor to be,

Very Respectfully, &c.

G. V. N. LOTHROP,

Attorney General.

[No. 6]

COMMUNICATION from the Auditor General, inclosing one trom the Attorney General relative to the Ypsilanti and Tecumseh Railroad.

Lansing, Jan. 24, 1849.

HON. WILLIAM M. FENTON,

President of the Senate.

SIR-I had the honor to receive this morning a copy of a resolution of the Senate of the 22d instant, in relation to the securities held by the state for the loan to the Ypsilanti and Tecumseh railroad company, and as said securities were in the hands of the attorney general, I addressed a note to that officer, with a copy of said resolution, for the purpose of obtaining the information desired by the Senate. Herewith you will receive his reply, which gives all the information in the possession of this office, as to their probable value, or the prospect of realizing any thing from them.

DEAR SIR-I lose no time in replying to your note of this morning asking for information respecting the "securities given for the loan to the Ypsilanti and Tecumseh railroad company."

By the act of the 6th of April, 1838, (session laws, page 259,) the sum of one hundred thousand dollars was authorized to be loaned to

said railroad company. By sections and of the act the road with all the franchises of the company were mortgaged to the state to secure the re-payment of said loan with interest, and the contemplated tolls of the road were pledged for the same purpose. As the road was never constructed, but has been totally abandoned, this security has become merely nominal.